2023 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Because they are as complicit as anyone. Only a naive fool thought players were clean.

 

Defining a problem is not the same as causing the problem.

If I had a vote for the Baseball Hall, I'd have a dog in this fight.

Otherwise, no.

 

PED’s started in the 90’s?

 

I had a vote. I made my position clear in public print. It didn't carry the day. Now I don't have a vote and frankly my interest in the Hall declines at an ever-increasing pace year after year. I know who's in MY Hall of Fame, the one I carry around in my head. That's enough for me.

 

To hear Tony Gwynn tell it, yes.

BASEBALL; New Drug Tests in Baseball Stir Debate Among Players (Published 2003)

''People might think there is a steroid problem in baseball, but it's nowhere near the other problem; the other, it's a rampant problem,'' said Tony Gwynn, the former San Diego Padres outfielder who estimated that 50 percent of position players regularly use amphetamines, commonly called greenies.

Even so, players appear to be much more tolerant about the use of amphetamines than of steroids, recent interviews with players and executives indicate. Gwynn said, ''Guys feel like steroids are cheating and greenies aren't.''

 

Talk about naive.

 

I can't help remembering that the story of Marvel's true red, white and blue hero, Captain America, is a testament to how amazing PEDs can be.

 

Since there is a bit of a steroid discussion going on, and I apologize for interrupting it, I thought I'd drop this here, rather than start a thread (my fear of crickets plays into that).

I have a freshman comp student who wrote a very well thought-out position paper saying they should just legalize PEDs because it would make sports better (I'm over-simplifying his take on it, but it was very good for an 18-year-old college freshman). He made some great points along the way, if a bit outlandish. I wanted to throw out one of his discussion questions to see what people think:

If they did legalize them, would that exonerate Bonds, Clemens et al, or would they still be seen as rule-breakers because of the rules at the time?

Also, what thoughts does anyone have about legalizing steroids/PEDs, if they were monitored/controlled, etc? Or is that too outrageous (which is what I told him when he first submitted the topic)?

 

I proposed the same thing a long time ago in a Lance Armstrong column, that we think of athletes as pharmanauts exploring the distant boundaries of human performance.

HGH is a great example of a PED that's now commonplace in every gerontology practice in America.

But I'm not sure you can retroactively change the rules of a sport.

You can however, offer an amnesty and an asterisk.

 

From what I understand, legalizing them would still create tiers of people who had access to the best, most effective kinds -- the pros, the already paid -- while creating a lower tier of aspirants who would use degraded PEDs and further put their health at risk. That was one point I'd heard mentioned, perhaps here.

 

I will be sharing all answers with the class. And taking credit for good ones, of course.

On the more serious side, though, there would have to be enough voters who would instantly flip, no?